Self - Defence - Ao3 (pape 1)

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

S76 of criminal justice act 2008
2 elements- (1) was some force necessary (2) was the force used reasonable
Keane confirmed that the purpose of the 2008 act was the clarify the law

Question 2

Element 1 - was some force necessary?

Answer 2

Must believe that som force was required s76(3), subjectively tested by jury who consider what D believed at the time.
Genuine honest sober mistake will satisfy - s76(4) confirmed in Williams and beckford
Intoxicated mistakes = no self defence s76 (5) (ogrady)
Doesn’t have to retreat and can make preemptive strikes + preparations + can be violent (cousins)
Not available if acting in revenge (Hussain)

Question 3

Element 2 - was the force used reasonable?

Answer 3

Jury will decide this + confirms s76(3) of 2008 act (was it reasonable in the circumstances?)
For non-house holders - if the force is not disproportionate it is reasonable
S76(7) - person acing for a legitimate reason cannot be expected up with a nicely the exact measure of any necessary action.
No defence if danger has already past (Clegg)
Homeowners s76 of 2008 act was amended in 2013 by s43 of crime and courts act.

Question 4

Ao3 - wording of 2008 crim justice act is vague

Answer 4

Wording remains vague and open to interpretation - allows flexibility for the view of society

Question 5

Ao3 - homeowner provisions and improvement or not on self defence?

Answer 5

Many fell to act failed to deal with the rights of homeowners- martin
They can be acquitted on the defence if jury believes force used was grossly disproportionate.
Courts seem very pro - home owners

Question 6

Ao3 - homeowner provisions and improvement or not on self defence?

Answer 6

Many fell to act failed to deal with the rights of homeowners- martin
They can be acquitted on the defence if jury believes force used was grossly disproportionate.
Courts seem very pro - home owners

Question 7

A03 - law creates a fair balance for standing your ground

Answer 7

Pre-emptive strikes allowed- beck-ford. However less clear for those who fight back.
Leaves a lot for the jury to decide
Can make different decisions on the case and circumstance = fair

Question 8

Ao3 - reasonableness of force test objective or not?

Answer 8

Problematic - changed to a purely subjective test, ignoring physiatrics conditions (martin)
Press (2013) - D can be wrong about the need for force but not the amount of force
Oye (2013) - matter for jury to decide of force was reasonable

Question 9

Ao3 - intoxicated mistakes about self-defence

Answer 9

Hatton and O’grady were denied s-d because they were intoxicated
Harsh and unjust but kept in s76(5) for public policy reasons.